I have to admit, I've just reached the limit of my competence. I don't know what it means for an explanation to be reductive. I'll have to go read something about that--my lack of formal education is exposed.
A triangle (made of parts) is the name for a particular arrangement of parts. If you arrange the parts differently, it isn't a triangle anymore. That arrangement of parts has the property of being self-supporting. So, yes, in my experience, triangularity causes rigidity that, say, square-ity does not. Also, note that the whole discussion of triangles being sturdy only applies to hollow triangles, e.g. struts and joints. If the non-triangle is solid, then discussions about stiffness or rigidity as compared to solid triangles becomes irrelevant--physically/mechanically speaking, the play of forces is different. Distortion of the angles is less a problem, buckling becomes an issue. ~~James On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Nicholas Thompson<nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > James, > > Your explanation is in terms of the arrangement of the parts... arrangement > and connection, if you will. Am I correct? > > Would you characterize that explanation as a reductive one? This is not a > trick question. I genuinely want to know. > > And should one speak of downward causation here? Is triangularity CAUSING > immobility of the joints? > > Nick ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
